ready for reform? · ready for reform? 5 massachusetts residents are ready to reform the state’s...

Ready for Reform? Public Opinion on Criminal Justice in Massachusetts

Massachusetts Criminal Justice Reform Coalition

crimepriso

n

supervision

sentences

criminals

help

jail live drugagreefeel

city

commit increaseparole

supportWorcester

incarceration

lawyers

rates services care family lif

e

case addic

ts

offe

nder

s

educationperson

wanttrial

affordbetter

effectivemoney

Brock

tonoffice

rsta

tes

streets

reform

userehab

different issue

college

opportunities

justicevio

lent

repeat

willin

g

paro

les

rele

ased

hous

emandatorysocietytime

contr

ol

fairgood

right

surprise police

ques

tion

year

s

needrehabilitate

killed

cost

jobworkchange

disc

retio

n

prog

ram

prob

lem

maybe

kids politicians

follow offense

longer

victim

scho

olco

mmunity

safe

new

peop

lethi

nkyes

MAINC1-42870 Criminal Report_fixed.indd 1 4/24/14 2:52 PM

ABOUT MASSINC

MassINC is an independent think tank using nonpartisan research, civic journalism, and public forums

to stimulate debate and shape public policy. Our mission is to promote a public agenda for the middle

class and to help all citizens achieve the American Dream.

ABOUT THE MASSINC POLLING GROUP

The MassINC Polling Group is an independent, nonpartisan full-service polling organization providing

public opinion research and analysis to public, private, and social-sector clients.

ABOUT THE MASSINC — MASSINC POLLING GROUP PARTNERSHIP

When MassINC and The MassINC Polling Group collaborate on research projects, The MassINC Polling

Group is contracted to design the survey instrument, perform data collection, and provide results.

Working together, MassINC and The MassINC Polling Group interpret findings and present them in a

report. While this report is authored by both MassINC and The MassINC Polling Group, recommenda-

tions presented represent the views of MassINC exclusively.

ABOUT THE MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COALITION

The Massachusetts Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, formed in 2012, is a diverse group of prosecutors

and corrections practitioners, defense lawyers, community organizers, and businessmen and women who

find common ground in the need for corrections reform in Massachusetts. The Coalition co-chairs are:

Wayne Budd, former U.S. Attorney; Kevin Burke, former Secretary of Public Safety; and Max Stern,

President of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The Coalition’s purpose is to

work with lawmakers to make major changes in the criminal justice system in Massachusetts, including:

• Placing a moratorium on new prison construction

• Reestablishing and empowering the state’s Sentencing Commission

• Building a statewide reentry initiative modeled after Boston’s Emergency Reentry program

• Redirecting resources from the most costly settings to pre-release and drug programming

• Developing clear lines of responsibility for post-release supervision

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

MassINC would like to acknowledge the Shaw Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Boston

Foundation, and individual donors for providing generous financial support to the Massachusetts

Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. We also express our gratitude to the steering committee for the

project, who reviewed drafts of the poll and provided insightful comments.

Cover image: The cover word cloud, drawn from the transcripts of the four focus groups for the project, was

generated using tagxedo.com



Steve Koczela

President, The MassINC Polling Group

Richard Parr

Research Director, The MassINC Polling Group

Benjamin Forman

Research Director, MassINC

April 2014



2 THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE FOR A NEW COMMONWEALTH

April 2014

Dear Friends:

MassINC and the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Reform Coalition are proud to present Ready for Reform?

Public Opinion on Criminal Justice in Massachusetts. We are confident that it will stand as a landmark piece of research on this topic, and we hope it will advance the debate on making changes in this area of public policy.

This report is the end product of an extensive public opinion research project conducted by the non-partisan MassINC Polling Group (MPG). Through four online focus groups and a statewide telephone poll, MPG sought to better understand Massachusetts residents’ attitudes and opinions on criminal justice: how the system is doing now, what it should be doing better, and what should be changed to get there.

The research was designed to capture opinion statewide as well as in the handful of urban communities most impacted by crime and the criminal justice system. Care was also taken to allow for comparisons with previous research here in Massachusetts, as well as with more recent national surveys which have shown support for reform.

We found that the national support for reforming the system also holds here. Massachusetts residents want a criminal justice system that is effective at reducing crime through prevention and rehabilitation. To get there, residents think many of the reforms adopted elsewhere would be effective, from job training and other reentry support to treatment for drug addiction and mental illness. They think there are too many inmates in prison, and that time in prison is actually contributing to recidivism. They strongly prefer some judicial discretion in sentencing rather than mandatory minimums.

These attitudes are consistent with national opinion, and they also mark a shift over time. In 1997, when MassINC last polled these issues, two-thirds favored building a new 1,000-bed prison in Massachusetts. Today, two-thirds favor reforms that would send fewer people to prison in the first place.

We first presented a summary of these findings at an event last month with Gov. Deval Patrick, where he laid out a 5-year plan to reduce recidivism alongside a series of other reforms. Many of the policies in his plan are similar to what we tested in this research, and, based on our findings, the public appears to be with the Governor on this issue.

And so is the Coalition. We look forward to supporting the Governor’s plan and other similar reforms by sharing this public opinion research with stakeholders and policymakers in the months to come.

Sincerely,

Greg Torres President The Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth (MassINC)

Masschusetts Criminal Justice Reform Coalition Co-chairs:

Wayne A. Budd Former U.S. Attorney

Senior Counsel Goodwin Procter LLP

Kevin Burke Former Secretary of Public

Safety and Security

Visiting Professor Endicott College

Max Stern Partner

Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin LLP President Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers


READY FOR REFORM? 3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

II. Views of the Current System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

III. Pursuing Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Poll Topline Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


READY FOR REFORM? 5

Massachusetts residents are ready to reform

the state’s criminal justice system with an eye

towards reducing crime through prevention

and rehabilitation. The public has shifted from

a harder line adopted during the tough-on-crime

era of the 1990s and is now open to a different

approach. The bottom line for residents is creat-

ing a system that is effective at reducing crime.

These are the major findings of our new

research project looking at public opinion on

criminal justice in the Commonwealth. The proj-

ect was commissioned by MassINC and the Mas-

sachusetts Criminal Justice Reform Coalition

as a follow-up to MassINC’s 2013 report Crime,

Cost, and Consequences: Is It Time to Get Smart

on Crime? It comprised four focus groups and a

statewide poll of 1,207 residents. Here are some

of the key findings:

Massachusetts residents want the criminal justice system to focus on prevention and rehabilitation—two areas where the current system is not seen as effective. • Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) think the criminal

justice system should prioritize crime preven-

tion or rehabilitation (Figure ES1). This and other

findings are largely consistent with national and

state polls by the Pew Center for the States, in

which majorities favored shifting resources from

incarceration towards alternatives.1

• Majorities of Massachusetts residents think

the current system is effective at punishing the

guilty (64 percent) and ensuring fair trials (73

percent). On other priorities like rehabilitation

and prevention of future crime, effectiveness

ratings were considerably lower. The lowest

effectiveness ratings went to rehabilitating pris-

oners addicted to drugs or alcohol (37 percent)

and addressing the needs of mentally ill prison-

ers (37 percent).

• Some parts of the system are seen as counterpro-

ductive. Most (59 percent) think released inmates

are more likely to reoffend due to being hardened

in prison, and 57 percent think inmates reoffend

because they lack opportunities and resources

upon release.

Two-thirds want reforms that result in fewer people sent to prison, reversing previ-ous high levels of support for new prisons. • In a 1997 MassINC poll, two-thirds supported

building a new, 1,000-bed prison. Now, two-

thirds (67 percent) would prefer to reform the

system so that fewer people are sent to prison.

• Proposals focused on reducing the number

of people sent to prison and improving post-

release prospects among current inmates

receive widespread support (Figure ES2).

• Overall, 85 percent support (52 percent strongly)

a reform agenda that includes a focus on reha-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Residents want to prioritize prevention, rehabilitationQ: Which do you think should be a top priority

for dealing with crime?

Figure ES1:

Don’t know / Refused 2%

Prevention 43%

Rehabilitation 21%

Punishment 15%

Enforcement 19%



bilitation, increased use of probation, reduced

sentences for non-violent criminals and drug

users, and judicial discretion instead of man-

datory minimum sentencing. Support for

these reforms rises to 91 percent (65 percent

strongly) when residents learn that other states

have lowered crime with similar reforms.

Residents show little support for mandatory minimum sentencing. • Only 11 percent favor mandatory minimum sen-

tences when presented with three options (Fig-

ure ES2). Far more prefer judges either use sen-

tencing guidelines (44 percent) or determine

sentences on a case-by-case basis (41 percent).

• This marks a clear departure from MassINC’s

1997 poll, when large majorities viewed a

variety of mandatory sentences as effective in

reducing crime.2

The public views drug use as a health problem rather than a crime, and favors rehabilitation over incarceration. • More than twice as many (64 percent) perceive

drug use as a health problem than a crime (24

percent).

• More than four in five (83 percent) think send-

ing drug users to treatment instead of prison

would be effective in reducing crime. Drug traf-

ficking is still viewed as a more serious offense,

and far fewer would support leniency for those

involved.

Figure ES2:

Reentry help, supervision, treatment all seen as effective at reducing crime Q: For each of the following, please tell me how effective, if at all, you think that it is or would be in substantially reducing crime?

% VERY EFFECTIVE

% TOTAL EFFECTIVE

Send non-violent, mentally ill people to treatment rather than to prison to keep them separated from hardened criminals 61% 90%

Provide prisoners with job training so they can find work after they are released 59% 88%

Require prisoners who are about to be released to connect with community groups that can help them after their release 53% 89%

Require a period of supervision for all prisoners following their release 52% 86%

Send drug users to treatment rather than prison to keep them separated from hardened criminals 47% 83%

Doing more to prepare inmates for release from prison by gradually moving them to a lower security level in prison, to work-release programs, to halfway houses and the like 47% 87%

Sending only those convicted of violent crimes and dealers of hard drugs to prison, and sentencing those convicted of lesser crimes to probation under close monitoring and control 35% 77%

Getting rid of things like television sets and gyms for prisoners, and concentrating on punishing them for their crimes 23% 42%

Require all prisoners to serve out their entire sentence with no chance of early release 21% 45%


READY FOR REFORM? 7

Concerns about supervision cloud picture of public support.• The focus groups conducted in preparation

for the poll found residents do not believe the

supervision system is effective right now. Par-

ticipants were sensitive to overworked supervi-

sion staff, and questioned whether they could

keep up with higher demands stemming from

reforms that sent more inmates into super-

vised release situations.

• Just 41 percent are aware that many inmates

are released without any supervision at all. In

fact, nearly half (48 percent) of inmates released

from Department of Correction (DOC) facilities

in 2011 recieved no post-release supervision.

In communities that receive a very large share of released inmates, residents agree with the broad, pro-reform sentiment of the rest of the state. • Because reform will disproportionately impact

the ten communities where 49 percent of DOC

releases take place, these areas were oversam-

pled to examine residents’ opinion’s on these

issues closely.

• While some responses varied by a few percent-

age points, there were no sharp departures or

reversals of opinion between these ten com-

munities and the rest of the state. Generally

speaking, residents from high-release areas

support the overall reform agenda and see

the potential benefit of the specific reforms

included in the poll.

Preferred sentencing practice?Q: Which is the best way for judges to sentence convicted offenders?

Figure ES3:

Let judges decide thepunishment each time on a

case-by-case basis

41%

Have judges use sentencingguidelines while still having

some discretion

44%

Require judges to sentencesome offenders to prison

for a minimum period of time

11%

Don’t know / Refused

3%


READY FOR REFORM? 9

MassINC’s 2013 report, Crime, Cost, and Conse-

quences, laid out a stark case for reforming the

Massachusetts criminal justice system—a system

that is incarcerating prisoners for longer periods

but not reducing crime or rehabilitating inmates

in a cost-effective manner. As a result of tough-on-

crime policies which were enacted in the 1980s

and 1990s, the share of the state’s population in

prison has tripled over the past 30 years.3

Those in prison remain confined longer, on

average, and a larger share of them are held in

higher-security facilities, all at a higher cost to

the Commonwealth. Much of this increase has

been driven by the use of mandatory minimum

sentencing, a policy which has had the unin-

tended consequence of limiting inmates’ eligi-

bility for parole, their incentive to rehabilitate in

prison, and their supervision upon release.

Beginning in the late 1990s, criminologists,

and then legislatures in many states, began to

shift away from the tough-on-crime approach in

favor of evidence-based reforms—policies backed

by data showing that they can reduce crime while

saving taxpayers money. These reforms focus on

reducing the number of inmates in prisons, redi-

recting resources into alternatives like treatment

for drug users, improved use of probation and

parole supervision, and reentry programs aimed

at easing the transition from prison back to soci-

ety to reduce recidivism among released inmates.

As the MassINC report details, this approach,

called Justice Reinvestment, has been adopted

across the nation, including in conservative-

leaning states like South Carolina, Texas, Arkan-

sas, Kentucky, and Georgia. Many of these states

have seen their crime rates, prison populations,

and criminal justice costs all drop since adopting

reform. As the MassINC report detailed, Massa-

chusetts, under Governors Romney and Patrick,

has advanced some elements of a Justice Rein-

vestment agenda. But for the most part Massachu-

setts, traditionally a policy leader among states, is

behind the curve on criminal justice reform.

Expert opinion has changed on criminal jus-

tice issues, but what about public opinion in Mas-

sachusetts? To find out, MassINC commissioned

the non-partisan MassINC Polling Group to con-

duct a public opinion research project on criminal

justice issues. The project comprised four online

focus groups and a statewide poll of 1,207 resi-

dents. Because crime and changes to the criminal

justice system disproportionately impact a rela-

tively small number of urban areas in the Com-

monwealth, the project was designed to allow for

an in-depth analysis of opinion from those areas.

Several questions were repeated from Massachu-

setts polls from past decades and from recent

national surveys on criminal justice, so as to track

how opinion has shifted over time and how it com-

pares to attitudes beyond Massachusetts.

In short, the Massachusetts public appears

ready to reform the criminal justice system. As

described in further detail below, residents think

the current system is effective in some areas, but

not the ones they would prefer to see given top

priority. In some cases, the public thinks that

current system is actually counterproductive and

contributing to recidivism. Opinion has shifted

against tough-on-crime tactics and towards

increased use of alternatives to incarceration.

When asked to rate potential reforms, resi-

dents reject the approach of past decades in favor

of policies aimed easing reentry and rehabilitat-

ing inmates. In this regard, public opinion has

shifted significantly from 1997, when MassINC

last polled on these issues, and it is now in line

with recent national polling.

the massachusetts public appears ready to reform

the criminal justice system.

I. INTRODUCTION



Overall, the public views the current system as

effective at punishing and trying criminals, but

little else. The public thinks too many are being

incarcerated, and that their time in prison actu-

ally contributes to their chances of reoffending

upon release. Very few favor mandatory mini-

mums as a way to sentence inmates. And most

residents think drug use should be treated more

as a health problem than as a crime.

The public views the criminal justice system as ineffective at many priorities.Majorities felt the current system was effective

at only two tasks: punishing criminals (64 per-

cent) and ensuring that defendants receive fair

trials (73 percent). Opinion ranged from mixed

to negative on all the other priorities tested (Fig-

ure 1). The system received the lowest marks for

preparing prisoners for release, rehabilitating

young prisoners, and dealing with mental illness

and drug addiction.

The public thinks too many are incarcer-ated and favors reform over building more prisons.Digging further into specific issues sheds more

light on the public’s dissatisfaction with the sta-

tus quo. One issue cited in the MassINC report

is the escalating prison population in Massachu-

setts. Since the early 1980s, the percentage of the

state’s population confined in a state prison or

jail has tripled. The public perceives this to be a

problem, with a plurality (40 percent) thinking

that too many people are in prison in the Com-

monwealth. Opinion on this issue is very consis-

tent with that found in a national poll conducted

for the Pew Center for the States in 2012, and

with the focus groups.4 “There are too many pris-

ons and they are overcrowded,” said one focus

group participant. “Reduce the number of pris-

oners!” was another’s response.

When asked how to address the growing

prison population, two-thirds (67 percent) would

prefer to “reform the system so that fewer people

44%

46%

32%

Current system seen as effective at punishment, fair trials — but little elseQ: Overall, how effective is the criminal justice system in Massachusetts at each of the following?

Figure 1:

Ensuring all people accused of a crime receive a fair trial

Punishing those found guilty of a crime

Rehabilitating young people convicted of crimes so they don’t become career criminals

Very effective

Fairly effective

Not too effective

Not really effective at all

52% 53%

59%

49%

9% 12% 29%

12% 16% 19%

18% 27% 14%

26%Addressing the needs of prisoners who have mental illness 24% 23% 10%

35%Preventing future crime by helping criminals reform 20% 26% 10%

28%Rehabilitating prisoners addicted to drugs and alcohol 22% 29% 9%

32%Preparing prisoners for release and reentry into society 21% 25% 9%

II. VIEWS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM


READY FOR REFORM? 11

are sent to prison,” rather than build more pris-

ons (26 percent; Figure 2). This was echoed in the

focus groups, where one respondent said, “Build-

ing more prisons is definitely not the answer.”

Massachusetts opinion is again consistent with

the Pew poll, in which 69 percent favored alterna-

tives to prison for non-violent offenders to reduce

the prison population and the crime rate.

It is also a sharp departure from MassINC’s

1997 poll on criminal justice.5 Then, a large

majority (83 percent) felt Massachusetts pris-

ons were overcrowded, and smaller majorities

favored building another 1,000-cell prison in the

state (64 percent), even after being told that such

a facility would cost $100 million to build and

$25 million annually to operate (53 percent). Sev-

enteen years later, residents favor a very different

solution to the problem.

The public thinks the system itself is contributing to recidivism.Residents do not want to reduce the prison popu-

lation simply for the sake of doing so; a major-

ity think time in prison is actually contributing to

recidivism. Three in five (59 percent) think that

most inmates are more likely to commit new crimes

after being released, because they have been hard-

ened by their experience in prison (Figure 3). This

figure is virtually identical to responses to the

same question asked in a 2005 statewide poll con-

ducted for The Boston Foundation. While there

has been an increase in the number who think

inmates could be rehabilitated in prison, it is still

only about half the number who see prison as part

of the problem.

Participants in the focus groups also picked

up on this dynamic. One participant said, “I think

that if a young man or young woman gets into ‘the

system,’ they can often become more of a criminal

than they were when they went in.” “Ideally, the

goal of the criminal justice system was to reha-

bilitate prisoners to be able to reenter society, but

I think we’ve gone the other way,” said another.

Reform the system

67%

Build more prisons

26%


8%

Two-thirds favor reform over building more prisonsQ: In your view, would it be preferable to build more prisons here in Massachusetts,

or reform the state’s criminal justice system so fewer people are sent to prison?

Figure 2:

Cycle of crime: residents see time in prison as contributing to recidivismQ: In Massachusetts, when most inmates get out of prison, do you think they are…

Figure 3:

2014

2005 (Boston Foundation)


12%

26%

LESS likely to commit new crimebecause they’ve learned their lesson or been rehabilitated

28%

16%

MORE likely to commit newcrime because they’ve been

hardened by experience

59% 58%

DO SCANDALS MATTER?We asked focus group participants whether they were aware of two recent scandals within the criminal justice system: patronage hiring at the proba-tion department and the falsifying of tests at the state drug lab. The proba-tion scandal seemed not to register with the focus groups, at least not as it relates to the criminal justice system. More were aware of the drug lab scandal, with a few bringing it up without prompting. Most saw the drug lab scandal as a sign of a systemic problem, rather than an isolated incident.

Multiple focus groups brought up an older story, that of a paroled crimi-nal fatally shooting a Woburn police office in 2010, leading to the whole-sale replacement of the state parole board. The resonance of that story reflects public concerns about the effectiveness of post-release supervision of inmates and bears consideration in discussions of policy changes that would put more emphasis on probation and parole over incarceration.



Public opinion on this point is in line with

the actual data on recidivism in Massachusetts.

According to the MassINC report, approximately

60 percent of inmates released from state and

county facilities in 2005 reoffended within 6 years.

Despite such high levels of recidivism, how-

ever, the public is not ready to affix blame exclu-

sively to prisoners for repeat offenses. Fifty-seven

percent think inmates reoffend because they lack

the opportunities and resources to build a bet-

ter life after release, compared to 37 percent who

think that “some people are always going to be

criminals.” As one focus group participation put

it: “I think when someone gets out of prison they

need to be helped along to get their bearings.

Otherwise they’ll be confused and disoriented

and go back to what they were doing before.”

Others in the focus groups cited the difficul-

ties of finding work with the label of ex-offender

complicating the search for employment. Taken

together, these findings suggest residents see

the criminal justice system itself as part of the

problem.

This conclusion is further supported by the

public’s ratings of the effectiveness of the current

system. More think the system is ineffective (46

percent) than effective (41 percent) at preparing

prisoners for release and reentry into society, and

the public is split as to the system’s performance

on rehabilitating young offenders and prevent-

ing future crime by helping criminals reform.

On sentencing, the public prefers judicial discretion over mandatory minimums.One driver of Massachusetts’s growing prison

population is the policy, enacted by law, of man-

dating that criminals guilty of certain crimes

be sentenced to prison for a minimum term.

According to the MassINC report, this practice

has had a number of unintended consequences:

In FY 2011, nearly two-thirds of drug offend-

ers and almost 60 percent of non-drug offend-

ers received sentences where the maximum and

minimum were very similar. This sentence struc-

ture limits parole eligibility, reducing the incen-

tive offenders have to take steps to self-rehabilitate

while in prison. It also means more offenders

return to the community without supervision. In

2011, nearly half of inmates released to the street

from DOC facilities received no supervision.

Scant support for mandatory minimumsQ: Which is the best way for judges to sentence convicted offenders?

Figure 4:

Have judges use sentencing guidelines while still having some discretion

Let judges decide the punishment each time on a case-by-case basis

Require judges to sentence some offenders to prison for a minimum period of time

Don’t know/Refused

52% 53%

59%

49%

2014


44%

41%

41%

47%

11%

9%

3%

3%



The use of mandatory minimum sentencing

dates back to a tough-on-crime approach adopted

during the 1980s and 1990s that has persisted to

today. In 2012, the legislature passed and Gov. Pat-

rick signed a so-called Three Strikes Law mandat-

ing life without parole for certain repeat offend-

ers. Passing such laws, especially in the wake of

a highly publicized crime or wave of crimes, may

be a natural and politically expedient reaction, but

our research suggests it is very much contrary to

the will of the public.

When presented with three sentencing

options, only 11 percent think that requiring judges

to sentence some offenders for a minimum period

of time is the best policy (Figure 4). About equal

numbers favor letting judges use sentencing guide-

lines while retaining some discretion (44 percent)

and letting judges decide on a case-by-case basis (41

percent). Half (51 percent) of those in higher crime

areas into which more inmates are released, and

who are most likely to be familiar with the effects of

the current policy, favored a case-by-case approach.

Further supporting this finding is the fact that

more think that requiring prisoners to serve their

entire sentence would be ineffective (50 percent)

than effective (45 percent) at reducing crime.

Focus groups participants were also wary of

mandatory sentencing. “There aren’t two crimes

that are exactly the same, so why should sentenc-

ing be?” asked one participant. “I think there has

got to be judge’s discretion for extenuating cir-

cumstances,” said another.

This is not a newly held opinion in Massachu-

setts. The 2005 Boston Foundation survey asked

the same question on mandatory minimums, and

our findings closely mirror theirs. On this issue,

public opinion and public policy have been at

odds for some time.

Residents still favor strong punishment for serious offenses, but not for drug use.The public’s preference for judicial discretion in

sentencing should not be misconstrued, how-

ever. Residents still favor strong punishment for

serious offenses (Figure 5). When asked whether

they would consider early release with supervi-

sion for inmates who had committed a variety of

crimes but who had a record of good behavior,

there was a widely held belief that those con-

victed of violent crimes or sex crimes should

Early release for drug use, but not for other offensesQ: Would you ever consider early release on parole for someone convicted of…

Figure 5:

Possessing or usinga small amount of drugs

Driving under the influence, often called “DUI”

Dealing ortrafficking drugs

A violent crime Sex crimes

78%

52%

37%

19%14%



serve their full sentences. One focus group par-

ticipant made a distinction between violent and

non-violent offenders: “I think violent criminals

should be locked up and throw away the key, and

non-violent ones should serve their sentence in

a facility that would be appropriate to that level

of incarceration.” Opinion was split on driving

under the influence, an offense that came up fre-

quently in the online focus groups as one that

was punished too lightly.

It is likely the public is not aware of the rela-

tionship between serving full sentences and unsu-

pervised release. Under current sentencing and

parole policies, serving one’s entire sentence often

results in no supervision. If the public understood

this relationship, it is likely they would prefer some

sort of supervised release scenario. A top con-

cern during the focus groups was that criminals

released under various reforms would not be well

supervised and would commit new crimes.

If the public takes a hard line towards violent

and sex crimes, it has a very different view of drug

use. According to the MassINC report, “drug

offenders account for more than one-quarter of

the growth in the state prison population since

1990” and “70 percent of DOC [Department of

Correction] inmates currently incarcerated for a

drug offence were sentenced under mandatory

minimum statutes.” Overall, drug offenders com-

prise 22 percent of the DOC population, despite

national research showing that incarcerating

more drug offenders has little impact on crime.6

More than three-quarters (78 percent) would

allow early release for some of these drug offend-

ers, those convicted only of “possessing or using

a small amount of drugs.” This opinion may

reflect a change in public attitudes towards drug

use and addiction. Indeed, more than twice as

many felt that that drug use should be treated

more as a health problem than as a crime (64

percent to 27 percent). Half (51 percent) felt that

the current system was ineffective at rehabilitat-

ing prisoners who are addicted to drugs or alco-

hol, and 83 percent favor sending drug users to

treatment instead of prison.

Public opinion is very different, however,

on the matter of dealing drugs, and a majority

(58 percent) thinks drug traffickers should serve

their full sentences. It is clear the public does not

view all drug offenders equally, and it is impor-

tant that discussion of policy around drug crimes

reflect that distinction.

NATIONAL ATTITIUDES SOFTENING ON DRUG USEOur findings on drug use are also consistent with changing opinion, nationally and in Massachusetts. In

April 2014, the Pew Research Center found that 67 percent nationwide favored treatment for users of hard

drugs like cocaine and heroin, compared to 26 percent who favored prosecution.7 This ratio mirrors our

finding that more Massachusetts residents view drugs as a health problem (64 percent) than a crime (24

percent). Pew also found that twice as many think states’ shifting away from mandatory drugs sentences for

non-violent drug offenders is good than bad (63 percent versus 32 percent). This represents a marked shift

in opinion from when Pew asked the question in 2001, when the public was split on the issue.

Shifting opinion on drugs and criminal justice is consistent with a change in attitude towards legalizing

some drugs. A March 2014 WBUR poll conducted by the MassINC Polling Group found that 48 percent of

likely voters in this fall’s gubernatorial election favor legalizing marijuana, compared to 41 percent opposed.

This marked a shift from a November 2013 poll by Western New England University, which found that 51

percent of adults opposed full legalization. Opinion is changing nationally as well. In 2013, both Pew and Gal-

lup found majority support for legalizing marijuana for the first time in over 4 decades of polling on the issue.8



In order to address the shortcomings they see

in the current system, residents favor shifting

priorities away from punishment and enforce-

ment and towards prevention and rehabilitation.

Reforms that ease reentry for released inmates

and treat drug use and mental illness are rated

more likely to be effective than tough-on-crime

measures, a dynamic that has strengthened

since MassINC’s 1997 poll and which is consis-

tent with other recent national polling. Residents

are less concerned about the cost of the system in

pursuing reforms, preferring instead to create a

system that is effective at reducing crime.

Prevention should be the top priority.Residents want a criminal justice system that

works, but they view the system’s role as more

than capturing, prosecuting, and incarcerating

criminals. The public wants a system that targets

the preconditions of crime as well. “Prevention,

such as education and youth programs” was the

public’s top priority for the criminal justice system

(43 percent; Figure 6). Rehabilitating prisoners

through education and job training was ranked

second (21 percent). Taken together, these two

priorities were favored by nearly twice as many

as punishment (15 percent) and enforcement (19

percent). These priority preferences were virtually

identical to those found in the 2005 Boston Foun-

dation poll. As with recidivism and mandatory

minimums, public opinion on prevention and

rehabilitation has been positive for some time.

Rehabilitating offenders was viewed favor-

ably by focus group participants as well. “The goal

should be to reduce crime by […] rehabilitating

criminals who can change,” one said. Another

asked, “What’s the point of simply holding crimi-

nals and not making them change?”

There is a sharp disconnect between the

public’s favored priorities and the perceived

strengths of the current system. As noted pre-

viously, majorities think the current system is

effective at punishing criminals, the least favored

priority. But opinion is less rosy about the sys-

tem’s performance on rehabilitation and preven-

tion; only 10 percent think the current system is

“very effective” at “preventing future crimes by

helping criminals reform.”

Prevention has long been top priority for criminal justiceQ: Which do you think should be a top priority for dealing with crime?

Figure 6:

2014


Prevention, suchas education andyouth programs

43%41%

Rehabilitation, suchas education and jobtraining for prisoners

21%23%

Punishment, suchas longer sentences

and more prisons

15% 15%

Enforcement, suchas putting more policeofficers on the streets

19% 18%


2% 3%

III. PURSUING REFORM



Reentry and treatment are seen as more likely to be effective than more punitive measures.There is a clear divide in opinion about the per-

ceived effectiveness of policies aimed at easing

reentry and providing treatment versus more

punitive, tough-on-crime measures (Figure 7).

Majorities thought all of the reform-oriented inter-

ventions would be effective, and most thought four

policies—requiring post-release supervision for all

inmates, job training programs, requiring inmates

to connect with community groups upon release,

and diverting non-violent mentally ill offenders to

treatment—would be “very effective” in reducing

crime. On the other hand, most thought that the

two so-called tough-on-crime measures—requir-

ing all prisoners to serve their entire sentence

without early release and removing televisions and

gyms from prisons and focusing on punishing

inmates for their crimes—would not be effective.

Several of the policy changes tested were

repeated from MassINC’s 1997 poll on criminal

justice. (Please see the topline results for notes

on differences in question wording.) Comparing

the results from the two surveys shows a clear

shift in opinion away from more punitive mea-

sures towards other strategies (Figure 8). The

percentage who thought providing job training to

inmates would reduce crime jumped ten points

between 1997 and 2014. Opinion on the effective-

ness of diverting drug users to treatment climbed

14 points, consistent with the larger change in

public attitudes about drug use discussed before.

Support for requiring post-release supervision,

already high in 1997, held steady, while belief in

the effectiveness of removing TVs and gyms from

prisons dropped. These changes in opinion sug-

gest that the public has moved on from the tough-

on-crime attitudes of the 1990s and are open to a

different approach.

Reentry, treatment seen as more effective than more punitive measuresSee topline (Appendix B) for full question wording

Figure 7:

Treatment not prison for non-violent, mentally ill

Job training

Require contact with community groups post-release

Require post-release supervision

Treatment not prison for drug users

Lower security / work-release programs / halfway houses

Probation for lesser crimes

No early release

No TVs and gyms

49%

Very effective

Fairly effective

58%

60%

61%

61%

0 20 40 60 80 100

24%21%

19%23%

42%35%

41%47%

36%47%

35%52%

36%53%

29%59%

29%61%



One intervention, moving inmates into lower

security prisons and halfway houses to prepare

them for release, was also repeated in the Boston

Foundation’s 2005 poll. In that survey, 33 per-

cent felt such a policy would be very effective in

reducing crime, and 47 percent felt it would be

somewhat effective—closer to the 1997 find-

ings than ours. This suggests a more recent shift

in opinion on this point.

On other measures, however, the findings of

the 2005 poll seem largely consistent with opin-

ion today. Three-quarters (75 percent) in that

poll thought it very important than prisoners get

an education so as to help them get a job upon

release, an issue that also arose frequently in the

focus groups. Four in five (79 percent) thought

that requiring prisoners work and receive job

training in prison was very important. And by

more than a 2-to-1 margin (66 percent to 29 per-

cent), more in 2005 favored a tougher approach

to the causes of crimes over a tougher approach

to crime itself—consistent with the desire to pri-

oritize prevention through education in both the

2005 and 2014 surveys.

The public favors post-release supervision, but there is skepticism about follow-through.Mandatory post-release supervision, which was

thought likely to be very effective at reducing

crime by majorities in both the 1997 and 2014

polls, encapsulates the public’s desire for an effec-

tive system: They want inmates to be released,

but they also want them to be monitored closely

so that they do not commit new crimes. Accord-

ing to MassINC’s report, nearly half (48 percent)

of inmates released from DOC facilities in 2011

recieved no post-release supervision. As noted

previously, this is an unintended consequence of

mandatory minimum sentencing, which often

results in too small a window between minimum

and maximum sentences to allow for an effective

period of parole.

While criminal justice advocates have been

aware of this issue for some time, the general pub-

lic is not very well-informed on the current state of

practice on post-release supervision. Residents are

evenly split over whether they think most crimi-

nal sentences include a period of post-release

Effectiveness of interventions, 2014 v. 1997Percent saying “very effective” at reducing crime

Figure 8:

2014

1997

No TVs, gyms in prison

23%

30%

Probation/monitoring for

nonviolent

35%

30%

Lower-security/work-release programs/

halfway houses

47%

35%

Treat drug users

47%

33%

Require post-releasesupervision

52% 53%

Job training

59%

49%



supervision; 43 percent thought most did receive

supervision, and 41 percent thought many did

not. Similarly, focus group participants frequently

confused parole and probation and showed little

understanding of the functions of either.

At the same time, the public has concerns

about the effectiveness of the post-release super-

vision that currently occurs. In the focus groups,

the top concern regarding reforming the crimi-

nal justice system was that “those on probation

or parole will not be supervised effectively, caus-

ing a spike in crime.” Participants cited the work-

loads of supervisors as driving their concern.

“Yes, parolees are supposed to check in with

their P.O. [Parole Officer], but the P.O. is so over-

worked that he can’t devote the time needed to

the parolee,” noted one focus group participant.

In multiple focus groups, when asked about

news stories they had heard about the criminal

justice system, participants brought up the 2010

case of Dominic Cinelli, a career criminal who

shot and killed a Woburn police officer after being

released on parole. This concern about the effec-

tiveness of supervision may explain why another

intervention, sentencing non-violent offenders to

probation instead of prison, was viewed as effec-

tive by a smaller majority than other reforms.

Effectiveness trumps cost savings as an argument for reform. In addition to rating the effectiveness of individ-

ual policy ideas, respondents were asked whether

they would support or oppose the following pack-

age of reforms:

Some people say we should reform our crimi-

nal justice system to include probation or shorter

sentences for non-violent criminals, in facilities

designed to prepare them to be released to society.

The worst, most violent criminals would still be

imprisoned for lengthy sentences. Judges would

have more flexibility and discretion to sentence

non-violent criminals and drug users on a case-

by-case basis, rather than through mandatory

minimum sentencing. Finally, those convicted

of using drugs would receive drug rehabilitation

treatment rather than being sent to prison.

SUPPORT FOR REFORM NATIONWIDEIf comparisons to previous Massachusetts polls show a shift in opinion towards reform, comparing this poll to national figures

suggests Massachusetts is coming into line with the rest of the country on these issues. A 2012 poll on sentencing and corrections

for the Pew Center for the States found strong support for various aspects of criminal justice reform, including:

• 84 percent agree that “some of the money that we are spending on locking up low-risk, non-violent inmates should be

shifted to strengthening community corrections programs like probation and parole”;

• 69 percent agree that there are too many inmates in prisons and support expanding alternatives to incarceration;

• large majorities favor diverting non-violent offenders or reducing their sentences to achieve a range of other goals;

• 90% prioritize preventing recidivism over focusing on the length of a prisoner’s sentence; and

• two-thirds (67 percent) favor shorter sentences with post-release supervision over longer sentences without supervision.9

A recent analysis of trends in public opinion in criminal justice drawing from the national General Social Survey and polls by

Gallup and national media organizations also suggests a shift in opinion nationally over the past two decades on a variety of

criminal justice issues.10

when it comes to public safety, most people don’t want to pinch pennies, but they want to make sure their money is well spent.



When presented with this agenda, 85 percent

of residents voiced their support, and a major-

ity (52 percent) said they would strongly support

such a change in policy (Figure 9). Support was

strong across almost all demographic groups,

although there was a partisan divide in terms of

the intensity of support, with 65 percent of Demo-

crats strongly supporting reform, compared to 43

percent of Republicans and 50 percent of indepen-

dents. (Large majorities from each party supported

reform overall.)

Support for reform increased when resi-

dents were told that other states that had imple-

mented such changes had saved money. Support

increased even more when they were told that

these policies had reduced crime; 91 percent

supported the reform agenda when told it had

reduced crime in other states.

That crime reduction is a more persuasive

argument than cost savings is consistent with the

responses to another question in the survey (Fig-

ure 10). About half (51 percent) are willing to pay

whatever it takes to have an effective criminal jus-

tice system. Only 37 percent say we need to save

money, even if it means reducing resources.

Prioritizing effectiveness over cost savings

also came through in the focus groups, where

many participants actually volunteered that they

would be willing to pay more for a more effec-

tive system. When asked to rate various reasons

for reforming the criminal justice system, the

top argument was reducing crime by reducing

recidivism. Saving money, whether to invest in

other priorities or to lower taxes, were two of the

three least persuasive arguments. When it comes

to public safety, most people don’t want to pinch

pennies, but they do want to make sure their

money is well spent.

The focus groups evaluated a similar reform

proposal, and the cost savings and crime reduc-

tion arguments, to similar results. Participants

were surprised, intrigued, and frustrated when

they heard that a reformed system has been

found to be both more effective and less expen-

sive in other states. While cost alone may not

be a persuasive argument, combining cost with

crime reduction—and citing evidence that it has

worked elsewhere—appears to be an effective

message.

Effectiveness trumps cost savingsQ: Which statement is closer to your own view?

Figure 10:

We need to save money onour criminal justice system, even

if it means reducing resourcesfor some parts of the system

37%

We need to pay whateverit takes to get a criminal

justice system that works,even if it means raising taxes

51%


12%

Reducing crime more effective argument for reform than cost savingsPercent who “strongly support” reform

Figure 9:

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Initial

52%

34%

After cost savings argument

60%

28%

After crime reduction argument

65%

25%



“HIGH-RELEASE” AREAS ALSO FAVOR REFORMOne disturbing finding from the MassINC report was that the incidence

of violent crime in the state—and the consequences of those crimes,

including the incarceration and release of individuals from those

communities—is highly concentrated in a handful of cities in the

Commonwealth. In 2011, Boston and nine Gateway Cities accounted

for 56 percent of the violent crimes in the state, 67 percent of the homi-

cides, and they received 49 percent of the inmates released from the

Department of Correction (Figure 11). Within Boston, the impacts are

even further concentrated, with the vast majority of violence occurring

in Mattapan, Roxbury, and Dorchester.

Because these communities would be impacted more than others by

criminal justice reforms, understanding public opinion among residents

of these areas is particularly important. Two of the focus groups were

recruited solely from these communities: one from the most impacted

neighborhoods in Boston, and the other from the nine most impacted

Gateway Cities. The poll also included additional interviews in Boston

and the Gateway Cities, so as to be able to analyze responses from there

more fully.

Residents of these “high-release” areas (the high-crime neighbor-

hoods of Boston, plus the nine Gateway Cities), express similar opin-

ions to the rest of the state, with only a few significant differences.

Perhaps not surprisingly given the crime statistics, fewer residents of

high-release areas said they feel very safe in their homes at night (61 per-

cent versus 75 percent overall) and walking in the neighborhoods after

dark (32 percent versus 55 percent). They also have slightly less confi-

dence in the current criminal justice system: 63 percent had “a lot” or

“some” confidence and 35 percent had “a little” or “no confidence,” com-

pared to a 71/27 split overall.

Despite this, they were more likely to think the current system was “very

effective” at achieving various priorities, except for “ensuring all people

accused of a crime receive a fair trial.” This concern about the fairness

of the system came through in the focus groups as well, where the high-

release groups ranked “making the courts and prison system more fair

and just” as the most persuasive argument for pursuing reform.

High-release communities also responded more enthusiastically to

several of the reform ideas: job training, requiring released inmates to

connect with community groups, treating the mentally ill, transitioning

inmates towards release with work-release and halfway houses, and pro-

bation for nonviolent offenders (Figure 11). At the same time, the high-

release focus groups were even more concerned than the overall popula-

tion about a lack of supervision of released inmates resulting in a spike

in crime. So while these populations are willing to try reform, they also

harbor reservations that reform will be carried out effectively.

Figure 11:

Ten Massachusetts cities bear brunt of violent crime

CITY

SHARE OF MA VIOLENT

CRIME

SHARE OF MA

HOMICIDES

SHARE OF DOC

RELEASES

Boston 20% 35% 18%

Springfield 7% 8% 9%

Worcester 6% 3% 6%

Lowell 4% 1% 2%

New Bedford 4% 1% 3%

Brockton 4% 4% 3%

Fall River 4% 2% 2%

Lynn 3% 1% 3%

Lawrence 2% 5% 2%

Chelsea 2% 4% NA

Top 10 Share 56% 67% 49%

High-release areas enthusiastic about reform; Reentry interventions particularly popularPercent saying “very effective” in reducing crime

Figure 12:

Job training

Require post-release supervision

Connect with community groups

Treat non-violent, mentally ill

Lower-security / work-release programs / halfway houses

Treat drug users

Probation / monitoring for nonviolent

No early release

No TVs, gyms in prison

49%

Overall

High release23%

21%

26%

23%

41%

35%

48%

47%

52%

47%

58%

52%

60%

53%

61%

61%

68%

59%



Massachusetts residents appear ready to reform

a criminal justice system they perceive as inef-

fective in the areas they would prioritize: preven-

tion and rehabilitation. They are also very con-

cerned about the counterproductive impacts of

prison time on recidivism, prefer judicial discre-

tion over mandatory minimum sentences, and

distinguish between drug use, which they think

of more as a health issue, and the crime of drug

dealing.

To fix the system, they favor many of the

reforms that have been adopted in other states,

both individually and when presented as a com-

prehensive reform agenda. And while hear-

ing that other states have saved money through

reform does increase support, residents are more

concerned with having a system that is effective

at reducing crime, regardless of cost. These opin-

ions have shifted from the tough-on-crime days

of the 1990s, and they are consistent with recent

national polls and trends in opinion over time.

These findings were first presented at a

MassINC event in February 2014. Gov. Deval

Patrick spoke at the forum and used the occasion

to lay out a plan for reducing recidivism by 50

percent over the next 5 years. The broad strokes

of his plan—improving reentry programs for

released inmates, expanding treatment for drug

abuse, improving care for the mentally ill, and

reinstituting a long-dormant state commission

to examine sentencing policy—are consistent

with the reforms residents rated as likely to be

effective at reducing crime.

It will be up to the next governor to either

continue Patrick’s 5-year plan or pursue another

vision for the criminal justice system. Either way,

we hope lawmakers will find the results of this

public opinion research useful in crafting policy.

IV. CONCLUSION

the broad strokes of gov. patrick’s plan are consistent with the reforms

residents rated as likely to be effective at redirecting crime.

Gov. Deval Patrick announcing 5-year plan to reduce recidivism

at a MassINC criminal justice event, Feburary 20, 2014.



This report covers a public opinion research

project comprising a series of four focus groups

and a statewide public opinion poll. The project

was sponsored by MassINC. The research pro-

cess was guided by a steering committee made

up of criminal justice practitioners, experts, and

activists.

Focus groupsFour online focus groups were conducted with

residents of different areas of Massachusetts.

Online focus groups permit a more geographi-

cally diverse group of participants, which was

important to ensure we were not exploring only

specific localized conditions. The groups lasted

approximately 90 minutes and included moder-

ated discussions as well as quantitative exercises

completed during the group sessions.

The groups were conducted from late

August through early September of 2013. The

four groups were composed as follows: 1) lower-

release neighborhoods of Boston and the inner

suburbs, 2) rural and exurban areas of Massa-

chusetts, 3) higher-release areas of the city of

Boston, and 4) higher-release Gateway Cities

(Brockton, Chelsea, Fall River, Lawrence, Lowell,

Lynn, New Bedford, Springfield, and Worcester).

Each group’s demographic makeup was similar

to that of the areas from which the participants

were drawn. The four areas were chosen to give

a broad spectrum of opinion regarding criminal

justice reform issues. Group members were paid

an incentive for their participation.

Public opinion pollPoll results are from a public opinion poll of

1,207 Massachusetts residents conducted Janu-

ary 23-29, 2014. The margin of sampling error is

+/- 3.5 percent for the entire sample. Interview-

ing was conducted by Braun Research, Inc. in

English and Spanish using live telephone inter-

viewers. Residents were reached on both land-

lines and cell phones.

Oversampling

Because of the subject matter of the poll, specific

attention was paid to communities where sig-

nificant numbers of Department of Correction

(DOC) inmates are released. According to a recent

MassINC report, 49 percent of all DOC releases

take place in Boston and nine Gateway Cities.

If sentencing and release policies change, these

communities will be disproportionately affected.

With this in mind, two oversamples were

added to the poll to provide a more precise

understanding of public opinion in areas most

affected by both crime and inmate release poli-

cies. Oversamples of 200 interviews were in con-

ducted in each of two areas: 1) The city of Boston

and 2) The nine Gateway Cities that receive the

highest number of DOC releases.

Weighting

Weighting is generally used in survey analysis to

compensate for sample designs and patterns of

non-response that might bias results. Weights

were applied to adjust for the oversampling of cer-

tain cities, to account for different probabilities of

selection associated with each respondent’s tele-

phone usage patterns, and to reflect Massachu-

setts adult general population parameters.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY



Survey of 1,207 Massachusetts residents

Field Dates: January 23-29, 2014

Overall, do you think things in Massachusetts are headed in the right direction or are they off on the

wrong track?

Right Direction 54%

Wrong Track 38%

Don’t Know / Refused 9%

Now I have some questions about how safe you feel. Please tell me how safe you think you and your

family are from crime in some different locations. Are you very safe, somewhat safe, not too safe, or

not at all safe from crime at this location?

2004 MassINC: The Pursuit of Happiness: A Survey on the Quality of Life in Massachusetts

ORDER ROTATED

VERY SAFE

SOMEWHAT

SAFE

NOT TOO

SAFE

NOT AT

ALL SAFE

DON’T GO OUT AT NIGHT

DON’T KNOW /

REFUSED

At home at night2014 75% 22% 2% 1% N/A <1%

2004 77% 20% 2% 1% N/A 1%

When walking in your neighborhood after dark

2014 55% 30% 7% 5% N/A 3%

2004 53% 35% 6% 3% 2% 1%

How much confidence do you have in the criminal justice system here in Massachusetts, which con-

sists of the police, the courts, probation, parole, and prisons—do you have a lot of confidence, some

confidence, a little or no confidence at all?

2005 Boston Foundation: Rethinking Justice in Massachusetts: Public Attitudes Toward Crime and Punishment

“How much confidence do you have in the criminal justice system as a whole—do you have a lot of confi-

dence, some confidence, a little or no confidence at all?”

2014 2005

A lot of confidence 24% 19%

Some confidence 47% 45%

A little confidence 19% 25%

No confidence at all 8% 8%

Don’t Know / Refused 2% 3%

POLL TOPLINE RESULTS



Which statement is closer to your own view? We need to save money on our criminal justice system,

even if it means reducing resources for some parts of the system. OR We need to pay whatever it

takes to get a criminal justice system that works, even if it means raising taxes. Order rotated.

We need to save money on our criminal justice system, even if it means reducing resources for some parts of the system. 37%

We need to pay whatever it takes to get a criminal justice system that works, even if it means raising taxes. 51%


Which do you think should be a top priority for dealing with crime? Order rotated.


2014 2005

Prevention, such as education and youth programs 43% 41%

Rehabilitation, such as education and job training for prisoners 21% 23%

Punishment, such as longer sentences and more prisons 15% 15%

Enforcement, such as putting more police officers on the streets 19% 18%


Overall, how effective is the criminal justice system in Massachusetts at each of the following?

ORDER ROTATED

VERY EFFECTIVE

FAIRLY EFFECTIVE

NOT TOO EFFECTIVE

NOT REALLY

EFFECTIVE AT ALL

DON’T KNOW /

REFUSED

Ensuring all people accused of a crime receive a fair trial 29% 44% 12% 9% 6%

Punishing those found guilty of a crime 19% 46% 16% 12% 7%

Rehabilitating young people convicted of crimes so they don’t become career criminals 14% 32% 27% 18% 9%

Preventing future crime by helping criminals reform 10% 35% 26% 20% 10%

Addressing the needs of prisoners who have a mental illness 10% 26% 23% 24% 16%

Rehabilitating prisoners addicted to drugs or alcohol 9% 28% 29% 22% 12%

Preparing prisoners for release and reentry into society 9% 32% 25% 21% 13%



Here are three options. Which is the best way for judges to sentence convicted offenders? Order rotated.


2014 2005

Require judges to sentence some offenders to prison for a minimum period of time 11% 9%

Have judges use sentencing guidelines while still having some discretion 44% 41%

Let judges decide the punishment each time on a case-by-case basis 41% 47%


As you may know, in Massachusetts, the court appoints and pays private lawyers to represent low-

income people accused of crimes. Do you think these court-appointed private lawyers are generally

good lawyers, just OK lawyers, or not good lawyers?

2002 Open Society Institute and National Legal Aid and Defender Association: Developing a National Mes-

sage for Indigent Defense: Analysis of National Survey

2014

2002 NATIONAL

Generally good 27% 14%

Just OK 49% 50%

Not good 13% 28%


How important is it for the state government to provide adequate funds to pay lawyers to represent

people who can’t afford their own lawyers—very important, somewhat important, not too important,

or not at all important.

Very important 58%

Somewhat important 29%

Not too important 7%

Not at all important 5%




Do you think there are too many people in prison in Massachusetts, not enough people in prison, or

is the number of people in prison about right?

2012 Pew States: Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in America

2014

2012 NATIONAL

Too many 40% 45%

Not enough 17% 13%

About the right amount 27% 28%


In your view, would it be preferable to build more prisons here in Massachusetts, or reform the

state’s criminal justice system so fewer people are sent to prison?

Build more prisons 26%

Reform the system so fewer people are sent to prison 67%


Would you ever consider early release on parole for someone convicted of READ ITEM if he has good

behavior, completes drug treatment, and was strictly supervised after his release, or should all who

are convicted of READ ITEM have to serve their entire sentence?

ORDER ROTATED

WOULD CONSIDER EARLY RELEASE

SHOULD SERVE ENTIRE SENTENCE

DON’T KNOW / REFUSED

Possessing or using a small amount of drugs 78% 18% 3%

Dealing or trafficking drugs 37% 58% 4%

Driving under the influence, often called “DUI” 52% 43% 6%

A violent crime 19% 76% 4%

Sex crimes 14% 81% 5%

In your opinion, should using drugs be treated more as a crime or more as a health problem?

More as a crime 24%

More as a health problem 64%

Both / neither / depends (not read) 11%




Next, for each of the following, please tell me how effective, if at all, you think that it is or would be

in substantially reducing crime—very effective, fairly effective, not too effective, or not really effective

at all.

1997 MassINC: Criminal Justice in Massachusetts, The Public’s View


YEAR

VERY

EFFECTIVE

FAIRLY

EFFECTIVE

NOT TOO

EFFECTIVE

NOT REALLY EFFECTIVE

AT ALL

DON’T KNOW /

REFUSED

Getting rid of things like television sets and gyms for prisoners, and concentrating on punishing them for their crimes

2014 23% 19% 24% 32% 2%

1997 30% 21% 24% 18% 6%

Sending only those convicted of violent crimes and dealers of hard drugs to prison, and sentencing those convicted of lesser crimes to probation under close monitoring and control

2014 35% 42% 11% 9% 3%

1997 30% 38% 18% 9% 5%

Doing more to prepare inmates for release from prison by gradually moving them to a lower security level in prison, to work -release programs, to halfway houses and the like

2014 47% 41% 5% 5% 3%

2005 33% 47% 9% 4% 7%

1997 35% 43% 11% 5% 5%

Require prisoners who are about to be released to connect with community groups that can help them after their release

2014 53% 36% 6% 3% 2%

Provide prisoners with job training so they can find work after they are released*

2014 59% 29% 7% 4% 1%

1997 49% 39% 8% 3% 2%

Send drug users to treatment rather than prison to keep them separated from hardened criminals**

2014 47% 36% 7% 8% 2%

1997 33% 48% 13% 4% 3%

Send nonviolent, mentally ill people to treatment rather than to prison to keep them separated from hardened criminals

2014 61% 29% 5% 4% 2%

Require a period of supervision for all prisoners following their release***

2014 52% 35% 7% 5% 1%

1997 53% 39% 4% 1% 3%

Require all prisoners to serve out their entire sentence with no chance of early release

2014 21% 24% 22% 29% 5%

* 1997 “More job training for prison inmates—training them for real jobs when they get out”

** 1997 “More treatment for prison inmates who are drug addicts or alcoholics”

***1997 “Closer monitoring, supervision and control of those who are paroled from prison or put on probation”



In Massachusetts, when most inmates get out of prison, do you think they are…? Order rotated.


2014 2005

LESS likely to commit new crime because they’ve learned their lesson or been rehabilitated 28% 16%

MORE likely to commit new crime because they’ve been hardened by their experience 59% 58%


To the best of your knowledge, do most criminal sentences include a period of supervision following

release from prison? Or are many criminals released without any supervision?

Most include supervision 43%

Many released without any supervision 41%


Which of the following do you think plays the largest role in released inmates committing additional

crimes and being sent back to prison? Order rotated.

Inmates don’t have the opportunities or resources to build a better life after release 57%

Some people are just going to be criminals, and will commit crimes no matter how many new chances they are given 37%


Some people say we should reform our criminal justice system to include probation or shorter sen-

tences for non-violent criminals, in facilities designed to prepare them to be released to society. The

worst, most violent criminals would still be imprisoned for lengthy sentences. Judges would have

more flexibility and discretion to sentence nonviolent criminals and drug users on a case-by-case

basis, rather than through mandatory minimum sentencing. Finally, those convicted of using drugs

would receive drug rehabilitation treatment rather than being sent to prison.

Thinking about the changes I just described, would you support or oppose changing the criminal

justice in this way? And would you strongly (support/oppose) these changes, or just somewhat?

Strongly support 52%

Somewhat support 34%

Somewhat oppose 6%

Strongly oppose 5%




Question order rotated for next two questions:

What if I told you other states have implemented these changes and found they cost less than what

we are doing here in Massachusetts? Knowing this, would you support or oppose changing the crimi-

nal justice in this way?



Somewhat oppose 4%

Strongly oppose 4%


What if I told you other states have implemented these changes and found they result in lower crime

rates than the type of system we have here in Massachusetts? Knowing this, would you support or

oppose changing the criminal justice in this way?



Somewhat oppose 3%

Strongly oppose 3%


Have you or a member of your immediate family ever been a victim of a crime?

Self or immediate family member was victim of a crime 41%

Self or immediate family member was not victim of a crime 57%


Have you or anyone you personally know ever been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison?

Self or someone the respondent knew personally was convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison 42%

Self or someone the respondent knew personally was never convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison 57%




Demographics

Race / ethnic background

White, not Hispanic 77%

Black, not Hispanic 6%

Hispanic 10%

Other 6%


Age

18 to 29 20%

30 to 44 26%

45 to 59 29%

60+ 26%


Gender

Male 48%

Female 52%

Education

High school or less 36%

Some college, no degree 27%

College graduate (BA/BS) 21%

Advanced degree 14%




ENDNOTES 1 “Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections in America”

(Washington, D.C.: Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Center on the States Public Opinion Performance Project, March 2012); “Public Attitudes on Crime and Punishment in Georgia” (Washington, D.C.: Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Center on the States Public Opinion Performance Project, February 2012); “Public Attitudes on Crime and Punishment in Oregon” (Washington, D.C.: Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strat-egies for the Pew Center on the States Public Opinion Performance Project, April 2012); “Survey of Public Attitudes on Justice Reinvest-ment in Missouri” (Washington, D.C.: Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Center on the States Public Opinion Performance Project, March 2012).

2 In the 1997 poll, between 30 and 54 percent thought various manda-tory sentences (for murderers, three-time violent offenders, drug dealers, violent juvenile offenders) would be very effective at reducing crime.

3 Ben Forman and John Larivee, Crime Cost and Consequences: Is it Time to Get Smart on Crime? MassINC, 2013.

4 “Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections in America” (Wash-ington, D.C.: Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Center on the States Public Opinion Performance Project, March 2012).

5 “Criminal Justice in Massachusetts: The Public’s View.” (Boston, Mass: Harrison & Goldberg Incorporated for MassINC and Crime and Justice Foundation, May 1997).

6 Prison population data do not differentiate between “drug users” and “drug traffickers,” in part because of the difficulty making a clear distinction. Population counts are simply provided for “drug offenders.”

7 “America’s New Drug Policy Landscape.” Pew Research Center, April 2014.

8 “Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana.” Pew Research Center, April 2013. “Gallup Poll Social Series: Crime” Gallup, Inc., October 2013.

9 “Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections in America” (Wash-ington, D.C.: Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Center on the States Public Opinion Performance Project, March 2012).

10 Mark D. Ramirez. “Americans’ Changing Views on Crime and Punishment.” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 77 No. 4, Winter 2013, pp. 1006-1031.



NOTES


MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COALITION

MEMBERSTruesee AllahDirector of Boston Reentry Initiative Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department

Jay Ash City Manager City of Chelsea

Michael J. Ashe, Jr. Sheriff Hampden County Sheriff’s Department

Molly BaldwinExecutive Director Roca

Anthony BenedettiChief Counsel Committee for Public Counsel Services Christine M. ColeExecutive Director of Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Harvard University Kennedy School of Government

Thomas E. CouryExecutive Director Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation

Edward DavisFormer Commissioner Boston Police Department

Kathleen M. Dennehy Former CommissionerMassachusetts Department of Correction

Lewis FinferDirector & Organizer Massachusetts Communities Action Network

Thomas H. GreenFormer 1st Assistant Attorney General Managing Director, Infrastructure Group Citigroup

John GrossmanPartner & General Counsel Third Sector Capital Partners

Reverend Dr. Ray HammondPastor Bethel AME Church

Martin W. HealyChief Operating Officer & Chief Legal CounselMassachusetts Bar Association

Lisa M. HewittGeneral Counsel Committee for Public Counsel Services

Tripp JonesManaging DirectorNew Profit Inc.

Albert KanebChairman Barnstable Corporation

Michael B. KeatingPartner & Chair of Litigation Foley Hoag LLP

Brian KyesChief of Police Chelsea Police Department

John LariveeCEO Community Resources for Justice

Edward MurphyExecutive ChairmanThe MENTOR Network

Betsy PattulloFounder & Chair of the Board Beacon Health Strategies LLC

Dean RichlinFormer 1st Assistant Attorney GeneralPartner Foley Hoag LLP

Steven A. TolmanPresident Massachusetts AFL-CIO

Robert TravagliniFormer Massachusetts Senate PresidentFounder & Principal Travaglini, Eisenberg & Kiley

Leo VercollonePresident & CEO VERC Enterprises

Leslie WalkerExecutive Director Prisoners’ Legal Services

Thomas WalshAssociate Dean Boston College Graduate School of Social Work

Bruce WesternProfessor of Sociology Harvard Kennedy School of Government

Michael J. WidmerPresident Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation

As of April 2014

CO-CHAIRSWayne A. Budd Former US AttorneySenior CounselGoodwin Procter LLP

Kevin BurkeFormer Secretary of Public Safety and SecurityVisiting Professor Endicott College

Max D. SternPartner Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin LLPPresident, Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers


11 Beacon Street, Suite 500Boston, MA 02108massinc.org | massincpolling.com@massinc | @massincpolling



ready for reform? · ready for reform? 5 massachusetts residents are ready to reform the state’s...

Documents